RE:RE:RE:RE:Who are these new shares for ? Agree with everything, it's overly defensive in my opinion, but management likely does not wish to assume the sun will always keep shining with the scary macro going on.
PS. Nuclear kills the least and does the least environmental damage per 1000 TWH, even in terms of areas cut off by paranoid governments voted in by paranoid populations that evacuate zones at below 10% of the minimum statistically noticeable level of health impact. People could live in Fukushima and Chernobyl right now (just don't break into the Chernobyl dome or eat mushrooms there), you'll get more radiation from eating a cluster of bananas or flying to Ukraine than you'll do from being in Chernobyl, and there was never a need to even evacuate Fukushima (not a single person has died of cancer there, some of the emergency cleanup workers got cancer but survived). The fossile fuel industry and anti war fanatics have used the idiotic parts of the environmentalist movement to make nuclear unprofitable (though solar is finally cheaper anyhow).
On the flip side all this paranoia has been good for investments into solar and wind (both of which kill more people, rooftop installations are not safe), though I don't know the impact on fusion. And the environmental safe zones human exclusion makes is neat.
Still, nuclear being assassinated by the left wing of the environmentalist movement backed by fossile fuels is one of the greatest injustices of the last several decades.